BBC interview with Cass. 'Both sides weaponised'

[RedToothBrush]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k1vkmxgd6o

Asked if children had been let down by an adult-led debate, Cass said "absolutely", adding they "were also caught up in all the issues about single-sex spaces and sports and safe areas for women which were actually not to do with the children but they were somehow part of a football within it".

This woman is proving herself exceedingly stupid and self serving.

Children were caught up in a debate about single sex spaces and sports which aren't about children?!!!

Wtf?

So let me get this straight. Young girls and teenage girls don't need and use single sex facilities. And issues with sports also don't impact on teenage girls.

Is that what she's saying????!!!!

Fuck off. And keeping fucking off some more.

This woman is proving herself to be an idiot and is trying to desperately make herself look better in the eyes of activists. She doesn't give a fuck about children. She's playing politics here for her own sake.

The issues around kids and single sex facilities are some of the most compelling!

I'm just staggered by this shit show.

Jesus when the Reform candidate is the most sensible voice on the panel it’s not a good look!

I agree. She's done fantastic work and the Cass report was groundbreaking.

To now dismiss her as an idiot or stupid or that she clearly can't know what she's talking about and needs to go and be educated by Baroness Nicolson and Grey-Thompson (where have we heard that before) is completely proving her point about the extremism on both sides.

She repeatedly makes the point that the majority of children will grow out of it (therefore should not be put on a medical pathway).

How does she know that the ones in the PB trial are not the ones who would grow out of it anyway and so therefore should not be on a medical pathway?

Well, I entirely agree, which is why I'm confused about how the PB trial can be a good idea.

I was struck (reading the written version on bbc news) about the claim that a tiny, tiny number of children need to transition because they’ll never be happy in their body. Why, why is this said? You’d never say it for any other mental illness! “There’s a tiny, tiny number of people who think they’re overweight so will help them diet until they’ve close to starvation.” Or ”there’s a tiny, tiny number of people who will never feel relief unless they cut themselves so we’ll source them a knife ourselves and hand it to them” I just don’t see the difference.

Pp’s are right to point out how valuable the Cass report was.

I still struggle to reconcile how she can recognise the damage that can be done by social transitioning, the damage done by puberty blockers, and the (current) impossibility of identifying which children will desist; while also supporting the PB trial 🤷‍♀️

But that seems to have always been her position

Yes, it is the concept of 'gender dysphoria' when one doesn't conform that is the problem here - because it ties in with the whole ideology of 'gender identities' and 'wrong bodies' etc So, now young people who struggle with the expectations of their sex are prone to calling it 'dysphoria' - which medicalises it.
Plus so many young people have mental health issues these days.......that many are grasping on to this label.

It is actually 'a tiny, tiny number of children will never be happy in their body, so we must give them the means to attempt to deceive other people and themselves about their true sex, and thereby create a whole raft of safeguarding issues'.

When did we ever have a conversation about whether society wanted to sanction that?

'She added: "There are a tiny number of people who will never be comfortable with their biological sex, with the gender associated with their biological sex.
"And for them, a medical pathway is the only way they're going to live their life comfortably. And we don't understand why that is, but we have to try and help those people thrive as much as the young people who are going to grow out of this."'

Surely the obvious answer is to wait and see which ones grow up and comprise the 'tiny number' who then benefit from medical treatment, rather than prematurely put children on a damaging medical pathway 'just in case'?

I agree with those who are finding Cass’ position balanced and well thought through.

Her PB trial position is, as I understand it, that there are case studies indicating that there is a rare condition for which puberty blocking followed by cross sex hormones produces the best outcomes for those with the condition, but the quality of evidence is weak and more robust evidence is needed.

I find the certainty of the people on here that there is no such condition surprising. I think Cass’ points about ideological blindness are probably true. I suspect that valid points about AGP, safeguarding, autism, trauma, single sex provision etc. do interfere with people’s openness to there being a rare condition. Perhaps the most significant influencing factor could be that when encountering 20 children wanting to transition, at most 1 is likely to have the rare condition. Whilst many children have been adopting trans identities (this is declining now), the majority have not been pursuing medical treatment, and so most people will not have met 20 in the first place.

I am not in favour of the clinical trial as it stands. I think its stance is too experimental. I think an ethical trial could be conducted if the inclusion criteria were much, much tighter. For example, any history of sexual abuse, indicators of non heterosexuality, autistic traits, mood disorders, social struggles etc would automatically exclude inclusion in the study. You would be left with probably fewer than 2 or 3 children (nationally) for whom eligibility was applicable.

Its telling that those advocating for the trial would object to the above saying that such inclusion criteria discriminates against certain groups, but this highlights their mindset being that the trial is a means to accessing desired treatment rather than a genuine trial set up to generate evidence to support informed decision making.

Though, having gone through puberty the issue of finding it more difficult to " pass" raises its head.....which then brings us neatly around to all of those AGP men who have been cross dressing since childhood, and who represent much of the noise, and create the narrative, around child transition.

Guidance was first proposed in 2018. A lot of pain on both sides would have been avoided if it had happened then, and the law clarified as happened with the Supreme Court judgment.

But there are people who wish they were taller, whose lives would probably be improved by being taller but leg lengthening operations are rightly seen as extreme and not regularly used, why is it ok for this group of people to go through life unhappy with their bodies but not another group? You can’t change sex, pretending you can only hurts trans people who by their very nature are already somewhat fragile.

Well that's sad for those people who want to pass more effectively as adults (men - women can take T as adults). But I don't think experimenting on children can be justified because of it.

@Brainworm Her PB trial position is, as I understand it, that there are case studies indicating that there is a rare condition for which puberty blocking followed by cross sex hormones produces the best outcomes for those with the condition.

Even if that is the case and we could identify those children with 100% accuracy, we still need to have a discussion about whether giving them the means by which to deceive others about their sex for the rest of their lives is the best outcome for society as a whole. Do the needs of the few outweigh the safeguarding needs of the many?

Back in the day, decisions about eligibility for medical treatment of gender dysphoria required patients to demonstrate that they understood that the treatment was not going to actually change their sex. This was prior to any physical treatment for children, and I think this eligibility criteria has been weakened by the mangling of language (e.g sex assigned at birth and acquired gender). I would like this to be reinstated.

I don’t think elements relating to social policy should be brought into the decision making, beyond making it clear that the law is subject to change and that ‘rights’ are liable to change over time and treatment decisions should sit outside of this for both the clinicians and patients

For example, any history of sexual abuse, indicators of non heterosexuality, autistic traits, mood disorders, social struggles etc would automatically exclude inclusion in the study. You would be left with probably fewer than 2 or 3 children (nationally) for whom eligibility was applicable.

Exactly. But without first excluding these comorbidities the trial will be on the wrong basis.

Even if certain children are excluded because of those other factors, the trial is highly questionable.

That’s quite difficult though, when the whole purpose of the treatment appears to be about how the patient is perceived by other people.

Those saying her argument is 'balanced' - it's like being balanced between a climate change denier and a climate change expert (a tightrope walk the BBC also tried to maintain for a long time). One is completely and fundamentally wrong and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise.

The reason we are where we are is, in part, professionals making a parallel diagnosis and passing the children onto another part of the system that does the same. Therapists diagnose distress, refer to endocrinology who prescribe drugs and refer back to therapists. Therapists are trained to look at mental health, endocrinology hormone levels. No one is trained to know who will persist throughout their lives and will have no regret about the consequences of the treatment.

The end result is a transitioned adult, but at no point has 'trans' been diagnosed. No one can have a consultation with a pre pubescent girl or boy and know that their lives are going to be better for being on this pathway.

Cass is saying that there is bound to be some children who persist with these feelings all of their lives, and if PB help in some way, and are not dangerous, this part of the system is safe.

She's supporting this system. As long as each step in considered safe, and while the idea some adults knew they were trans from childhood persists, the system will not stop.

I don’t think elements relating to social policy should be brought into the decision making

It is the initial decision to allow those sorts of treatments to be permitted that I am talking about. Surely society has some input to make? Abortion? Assisted dying? Expensive cancer drugs?

You’d never say it for any other mental illness

Niche example, but there have been cases of Body Integrity Dysphoria resolved by limb amputation. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a 'tiny, tiny' number of people will need to medically transition in order to have the best shot at life.

I expect there will be a significant difference between those who 'need', and those who 'want' though.

I expect most people would have huge issues with this however. Purposefully disabling people seems like an insane thing to do.

Oh absolutely! An ethical minefield.

Abortion and assisted dying were/are illegal and the public debate has been in relation to whether laws should be changed.

If there had never been laws around abortion or assisted dying, I’m not sure there would be appetite to introduce them. I don’t think there is an appetite to introduce laws around medical treatment.

When it comes to vfm decisions about treatments, these are made by NICE, not the public or government- as I understand it.